A month following President Duterte’s controversial announcement

of his Vice-Presidential bid in the upcoming 2022 National Elections, he

further stated last month that his true intentions in vying for the position
was to avail of the Vice President’s alleged immunity from suit in
response to the countless threats of his prosecution, most notably
concerning his war against drugs.
During the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-
Laban) gathering on July 17, Saturday, President Duterte stated that:
"Sabi ng batas, kung bise presidente ka, may immunity ka. Eh 'di
tatakbo na lang ako ng bise presidente. After that, tatakbo ako ng
bise presidente.”
The crux of the controversy lies in President Duterte’s claim that
the Vice President is immune from suit. Shortly after the announcement,
many legal and constitutional experts were quick to dismantle President
Duterte’s notion of Vice-Presidential immunity.
There is no legal basis for the claim that the Vice President is
immune from suit. The constitution lacks any provision that would
support this assumption nor is there any Supreme Court decision that
would support the same. This is reflected from the opinions of Mel Sta.
Maria, dean of the Far Eastern Institute of Law, former Supreme Court
Justice Vicente Mendoza, and Secretary of Justice Menardo Guevarra.
Sta. Maria countered President Duterte’s statement, saying that
there is no provision in the 1987 Constitution, nor is there any
jurisprudence stating that the Vice President is immune from suit like the
President.
In 2015, the immunity argument was also forwarded by then Vice
President Jejomar Binay, using the same as a defense for the plunder
charges against him. At that time, former Supreme Court Justice Vicente
Mendoza shut down Binay’s argument, stating that the 1987 Constitution
does not render the Vice President immune from suit and that the Vice
President does not possess the same duties and powers as the
President.
Moreover, in 2019, Secretary of Justice Menardo Guevarra also
explained that there is no provision in the 1987 Constitution that can
protect Vice President Leni Robredo from the charges of sedition or
inciting to sedition, cyber libel, estafa, and obstruction of justice against
her. Although the Department of Justice (DOJ) cleared Robredo of the
charges a year after, Guevarra’s stand that the Vice President is not
immune from suit can be applied in President Duterte’s present
declaration.
It is clear that the Vice President is not immune from suit.
However, it is also important to understand the legal consequences
which prompted President Duterte to cling to this wrong notion of Vice-
Presidential immunity.
It was mentioned that President Duterte’s announcement was in
response to the countless threats of his prosecution. Staunch critics of
the Duterte regime like retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio
were the ones leading the charge to prosecute President Duterte after
his term.
However, the biggest threat to President Duterte after his term is
not his critics in the Philippines, but the International Criminal Court
(ICC). This past month, the ICC Office of the Prosecutor applied with the
pre-trial chamber (PTC) to open the investigation against Duterte’s war
against drugs. As President Duterte’s term is winding down, the threat of
his prosecution grows stronger, thus solidifying his stance on Vice
Presidential immunity.
Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda told the PTC that not only is President
Duterte guilty of crimes against humanity for the extrajudicial killings
brought about by his war on drugs, but also for similar crimes during his
tenure as the Mayor of Davao City.
Although the ICC prosecution is resolute in their action, they are
still marred by challenges in advancing their claims. During President
Duterte’s term, he has withdrawn the Philippines from the Rome Statute,
and consequentially, the ICC. Furthermore, the recent Supreme Court
decision in the consolidated case of Philippine Coalition for the
International Criminal Court (PCICC) vs. Medialdea denied the
consolidated petitions to declare the Philippines’ withdrawal from the
Rome Statute as invalid and ineffective for failing to demonstrate
justiciability1.
Article 27 of the Rome Statute states that the statute will equally
apply to “all persons without any distinction based on official capacity 2.”
The article further specified that the Head of State of the government or

1
PCICC vs. Medialdea, G.R. No. 239483. 21 July 2021.
2
Article 27, Rome Statute. 17 July 1998.
any elected member of any government shall not be exempt from any
criminal responsibility under the said statute3.
Furthermore, in June 2005, the ICC formally opened an
investigation in Darfur, Sudan in connection with the alleged genocide
and crimes against humanity being committed by Janjaweed militia and
the Sudanese government. Among those who were prosecuted was no
other than the President of the Republic of Sudan, Omar Hassan Ahmad
Al Bashir.
Al Bashir and President Duterte are both accused by the ICC
Office of the Prosecutor of crimes against humanity. This is in line with
Article 27 of the Rome Statute which provides that no elected member of
any government shall be exempt from any criminal responsibility. Both
the Rome Statute and the Sudan case further strengthens the notion
that the President, much less the Vice President, of the Philippines is not
immune from suit from the ICC Office of the Prosecutor.
The ICC has since then stated that President Duterte’s unilateral
withdrawal from the Rome Statute and the ICC will have no bearing
against the pending investigation because according to them, the Rome
Statute states that any proceeding started before a nation’s withdrawal
will remain effective after the same. They stated that the difficulty will
stem from the lack of cooperation coming from the nation in question.
President Duterte’s past and present actions regarding his
withdrawal from the ICC and his Vice-Presidential bid, respectively,
allows for a material review and reflection on the fundamental principles
of Constitutional law.
As further jurisprudence like Justice Leonen’s decision in PCICC
vs. Medialdea develops this story, we must continue to keep these
fundamental principles to heart, not only as future BAR takers, but as
steadfast and competent future lawyers as well.

Sources:
3
Ibid.
https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/07/19/21/guevarra-opinion-vp-immunity-
suit
https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur
https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/albashir
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1461191/vp-has-no-immunity-from-suit-
lawyers-agree
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/07/22/1936777/vp-robredo-not-
immune-suit
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2021/07/17/2113215/duterte-says-
run-vice-president-gain-immunity-suit
https://www.rappler.com/nation/doj-resolution-conspiracy-commit-
sedition-opposition
https://www.rappler.com/nation/elections/duterte-says-run-vice-
president-immune-from-suit
https://www.rappler.com/nation/international-criminal-court-application-
investigation-duterte-drug-war-june-2021
https://www.rappler.com/nation/elections/philippine-constitution-
provision-president-running-vice-president
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/vice-president-binay-
immunity